Wait, I thought the gargoyle had magic res on its outside and phys res on its inside? huh?

this some hidden tech

Preach (gun safety!)

Uh, the idea is that neither side should be allowed to claim moral authority, it's what I was going for when I went "TP didn't try to force the language so you shouldn't have been so resistant"

but if we're trying for some preemptive, guerilla tactics here
some next level ultra overkill of the subject, there is still nothing I can say

With customised pronouns you're forcing irrelevancy upon a subject that decreases the efficiency of conversation and communication

it's not like it's workable through, but you're putting extra effort into making interactions more tedious, and for what?
it's impossible to identify to a gender that you've made up, since the gender you've made up or the pronouns you use is personalizzed to you
if there are other groups that can relate then sure, if this is a matter of looking for a particular group that shares your interests that is SOMEHOW completely unrelated to the experiences of people that identify as a man or woman, go for it

but aside from that it's a needlessly long extra mile to take

I said gender is the start, not the end all be all. I'm not getting friends based on their gender, I explained to you that one of the important qualities in regards to social interaction is the idea of relating to their experiences, because alot of feelings cannot or really should not (socially), or even are preferred not to be spoken with words.

In which case, these specific groups are essential. And one of the most basic of these groups is gender. You don't ask a pianist how they manage their oxygen tanks, do you? Conversations and interactions are often very very greatly alleviated by these relations, just because it's not the epitome of relation doesn't mean it doesn't help a fuckton.
---
"You don't need to be worrying about befriending your doctor or mechanic" I'm using them as easily explainable groups where their differences are so well defined that you understand, when scaled down to regular interpersonal relationships, there is absurdity in the idea that the relations groups entertain is irrelevant. I don't talk enough where i can think of a realistic example off the top of my head that doesn't sound entirely weird,

something like talking to someone who only plays shooter games 8/10 times is going to differ from someone who only plays pokemon and animal crossing. Not in the literal sense of talking, but in the subjects and presumptions applicable to their character.
---
Why would I get mad at gender neutral terms? I'm arguing that the very notion of gender is a group, I'd go one step further and say alienating yourself from a given gender by adhering to the next gender is just saying you're more easily relating to a certain group's gender roles, the idea that your relations and experiences can be unrelated to either gender to me simply doesn't make sense. Rather simply "identifying" (being in relation to) certain gender roles and experiences is all that conversation asks for.
---
Using a masculine pronoun because they're intimidating is a reasonable response to someone breaking into your room, it's not "stupid" you naturally assume that because your experiences and familiarity with the male gender exuberates the characteristics faced by you here. It's not "women can't steal" or "I think everything is masculine"

it's "I need to have an automatic assumption, and alot of the times I see men that are srtong, bulky, and working out. Alot of the guys I've seen also happen to be very bold, and similarly I've seen alot of male delinquents", your first thought is going to be that it's a guy. Also, I'm saying gender is for interpersonal relationships, but you're not relating to a criminal, hence why it's gender is irrelevant here and why gender neutral terms are prevalent. If you don't know someone's "gender", but they look like a woman, it's proper to assume they're a woman.

I mean
the issue is kind of
there's nothing else for me to defend? like I can point out holes in their arguments, but I'm in favour of the idea of their being an inherent uselessness attached to custom pronouns

and even though I call it irrational, it is a factual statement that if permitted, a larger population of people likeminded with TP may change the norms regarding the MK community, in which case I can say I would not prefer

and then ontop of that I can say exactly why I wouldn't prefer it exactly

Maybe i just wanted a moral highground against peers, in the first place their approach regarding the comments was the only thing to argue against really
It's not like I didn't speak against TP but he's barely written enough in comparison to the long ahh sh user15 something sent n stuff, almost pales in comparison

did I respond to this, it feels like I did

but yeah by vocal maiority (practically majority afaik) I meant the general notiong and mental imagery regarding the trans community

Imma be honest with you bro

I see long ass arguments like these and I genuinely just feel left out sometimes
I mean it's a comment and I'm anonymous, so i can necropost, but there's some sort of emptiness

like you ever think of aretort to an argument in the shower? it's like that whenever I see this, except I can actually leave a reply with that retort
I'm gonna forget all about it by the time I'm at the next chapter anyways

ehhhhhhhhhhhh cancerous in regards to the idea of intrusion, and in acknowledgement of the irrationality behind attacking someone for saying soccer in Europe-

means there's nothing left for me to say, if it's just "to keep them out" as you say it, I can't even argue that I'm against that reasoning
I really wasn't expecting someone to be so overtly straightforward with it

Okay...
...if it's in acknowledgement of the prevention of change in the community, since I can understand the comparison to "cancerous", then there really is nothing I can say

"I'm not speaking as the leader" is really all I needed to hear tbf and I would have sat down
attacking I think is a bit extreme but then again it's specifically on the internet where the worst of them breed so it's beyond understandable

Ehh I'd still say there is no "books" community, or no true "manga" community

There's groups that enjoy reading, group reading, romance stories, science fiction stories, japanese-art ridden fantasy stories, etc, etc

But really and truly simply saying "I like books" or "I like manga" is like saying "I like TV", the makings of a television? the history? which channel?

I guess it's similar for the internet, but rather particular to a comment section, or social media, or a certain platform, the idea that anyone can be apart of it regardless of content was my main focus, I think
---
I'm not sure abt this successful sh, were they really that prevalent? But anyways if that's all there is to it literally nothing I can say lol
If I went on the latest Onimai chapter and it was full of people calling mahiro fruity, or drag queen gifs or sm other sht I think I'd just go insane (from sadness)
Woke manga as a subgenre I do NOT want to imagine, keep working ig (a man of sheer will)

"Talk shit to each other daily" okay, then why the hell are you trying to justify shit? How about instead we say "I don't like how it sounds so I wanted to hate on him", that I can get behind

it's unreasonable and nonsensical, but everyone does it all the time, instead you're doing the opposite of this, and finding a way to justify your hate rationally, which is beyond stupid because your argument to justify your hate is in opposition to the very reason why hate is regularly permitted on the internet

You UNDERSTAND that unreasonable hate across the internet by intention is unreasonable, and you want to argue with an uncensored opinion.

But you're taking the worst of both worlds;

1) trying to argue against TP specifically instead of the idea you've characterized him with.and doing that by mentioning something irrelevant of the comment (trying to prove a point without actually addressing the point, in other words practically saying nothing)
2) trying to justify the way you reacted rationally, despite the only true justification being selfish and irrational (hypocriticism)
---

If you wanted to start an argument about "T bullshit" I can get behind that, personally I find everything related to those groups often distasteful.
If you had a justification for not wanting him to speak here, I can get that, even if there's no real explanation to why that would be an issue.

But you mesh these together into a heap of nonesense, wheresuch you have no real argument because you're trying to address a subject tying yourself the notion that you hated on a comment for a reason irrelevant to the subject in question, THAT is the issue

Heaps of text where you're using arguments that have no bearing or relevance in the argument you're actually partaking in, then making presumptions about a fuckton of things because alot of your preconceptions about those arguments haven't actually been argued against yet.

There's fcking layers to this bro...
"I did X because of Y, and I did Y because [did you know] ABCDEFGHIJK T people"
This is how it feels talking to you, I have to explain you didn't do X, tell you why Y doesn't make sense, then argue against nonsensical justification ABCDEF that doesn't even relate to Y properly.

---
Once again, "it's not an issue yet" is just paranoia, you're assuming scale, the future, and getting angry at a change that is probably not going to happen, but even if it did happen you assume you're in right for being against that change, that somehow you're preventing the fall of a civilization, huh?
---
sorry, in the intonation here would stress on "the only", in reference to the fact that this is NOT how you reacted, instead you were vehemently opposed to the idea that he was using foreign language here
---
"own little spaces' the ENTIRETY OF MK, A PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, ISN'T A "LITTLE SPACE" LMFAO
a "little space" would be a private group chat with your friends, the mere NOTION that your group is open to the public IMMEDIATELY invalidates it from being a "little space", why don't you get that? did we suddenly forget how comments work???

Think of it this way, if a modding community is built up for a game, is that in detriment or offense to regular players? Afterall, they are recreating versions ofthe game to be of their own design...

Of course it isn't, the player can still enjoy the regular game on its own, the player still has fun at it, and likewise your interpretation of the story is irrelevant to his fantasies applied to that same story, If there's a mod that adds a version with aim assist for plebs, are the plebs in the wrong for playing that version? Your argument makes no sense.

Then one step further, if the author makes the game easier to mod, or adds on of those features, is the author somehow in the wrong? You feeling betrayed isn't a proper reason, btw.
Just like how an author can do whatever he wants for his game, and an author is inclined to do what supports the majority, and how a player is always free to interpret stories and media irrelevant to other people's interpretations, fantasies or not applied to them...


You can't say that TP's use of language is going to negatively affect anything. It doesn't affect you, or how you see the story, it only affects TP, and that in of itself does not matter because interpretations are meant to be subjective, and bro is unrelated to you. If MK owners or the author makes a change that supports this idea, then why are we angry at TP, or the predisposition of the change? Realistically, you would then complain about consistency issues, about realism, about relevance to the narrative, THAT would be the issue if TP's language ever truly made a difference. The mere fact that changes are being made is not a fucking reason for anything, like bro r u fr? (serious question)

"invasive ideology" bro are we fr, you can't be fr with this language
a commenter doesn't dictate what a character is or does, I can call naruto a whiny bitch I'm not "moulding him into my political ideology"
You're using terms that loosely explain what's happening without any proper backing, is there even scientific proof behind this? This sounds as bad as media literacy nonesense

There is no effort spared here to turn lily into a trans character, that much is obvious, and if you've deluded yourself into believing that's his secret agenda then you are already beyond saving. There's nothing to argue when you hysterically predetermine exactly what TP plans to do and then respond aggressively, that's just straight up paranoia.

In the first place, you're stupid for starting this off with "alien to the original fan", because why the hell does the original fan matter? No, seriously. Can you give me a reasonable, rational, literal, factual reason as to why specifically catering to the "original fans" (you aren't even the original fan bro) is better for the author? No, you can't. Because the only difference between original and new fans is their subjective interpretance of the media, and that is almost irrelevant to group.

And yes, I know you didn't strictly say that. But without that takeaway, you literally say nothing. If you aren't trying to say "well if the community stayed the same, and catered to the people already there, or to me, it would be better" then what are you doing? You point out that obviously the community would change, without saying why it would be better?

Did you stop to consider how you changed the community? Maybe masses like me and you changed a private space for 2, 3 fellows who happened upon this site during it's inception (I have no idea the origin story of MK). Does that mean I should self loathe myself, that I inadvertently ruined the "little space" they had? Fuck no. If they wanted a private space they should have kept the site private, the ability to join is the only reason I need to join, and likewise is the only reason I need to say you'd be in the wrong for telling me I can't join.

I mean seriously, if I joined the dark souls community being ass at the game, and they told me to fuck off, I'd tell them to fuck off too??? I actually am upon reflection realizing how you used the shittiest, stupidest, most insufferable example of people with a screw loose as a positive point in your argument. You already submit to the varying state of community the moment you opened a web browser. You've already submit yourself to people who could call you slurs, braindead children, furries, and every other horrible or delightful quality of the internet, because the internet is a public space.

Your point makes no sense, taking an imaginary role at some king's chair, as if the world is meant to revolve around you? Surely at the VERY LEAST we can acknowledge that the only reason for the pushback is not because it'd be better, there's no real justification for the hate against TP's comment, you simply want to things to stay the same. And that's fine, if you don't want to be open to disagreement there's nothing I can say about that. It's bluntish, it's the embodiment of ignorance, you don't even want to consider arguing or disagreeing with TP, you want complete void and you want everyone around you to follow suite despite making the effort to run into communities that would put risk against that thought, it's quite a selfish justification, but it's completely fair to say that.

Seriously, I'm not even villanizing you here. Because everything you said would make infinitely more sense if you said "I really wouldn't like it if this place changes", instead of claiming that this is to the benefit of the community. I mean I haven't even argued how there's almost no chance of anything changing, but yeah.

"Why are you hating on this guy"
"I don't want other people to be like him"
Stupid, and selfish, but a realistic, reasonable, rational, understandable explanation, it is NOT that hard bro...

[read 2nd]

Defending an opinion is alright, but that is not what you're doing. Instead you're trying to push this agenda, this idea that in a lace where you're all too well is unfamiliar with TP's language, there will arise a huge ton of people like TP using TP's language, and this will break the MK section you are so used to.
Issues with this belief:

1) It is founded in a hysterical, mysteriously huge sense of paranoia, since you seamlessly make this assumption if we are in regard to the original issue of this comment section (that people who speak like TP are going to flood here)

2) Despite defending your opinion, you go the extra mile to say that the threat of an influx of people who hold a different opinion is a rational justification for keeping them out, but not just in the "it's in my best interest" sense, rather in the "it's in the community's best interest" sense, which is objectively false. Even if you share a common ground, you cannot dictate what a community is allowed to entail, because in the first place the community is in acknowledgement of and with permittance of other groups.

This is like if a short guy joined an acting group that happened to be comprised of short men, but said they were hiring all people; and you suddenly decided they're not allowed to hire tall men, or women.

Does it keep the norm? Sure, if that's something you enjoy (irrelevant to the community's welfare). Does the community want it? What the hell, maybe by some mystery all the short people in the group strictly relate to short people only, and somehow tall people are just alien, impossible to communicate with, and all the same (why, just look at the twitter posts of course, so insufferable!!!!). But even past all of those presumptuous notions, you physically CANNOT justify not hiring tall people, after opening a group that says it would want to hire all people (with tall people as a subsect).

Likewise, you can't say that you deserve to be the majority in the internet, that if everyone spoke and talked like you, or the few in the community who relate to you to a T, it would be better, because that's pretty subjective. It's completely wrong to assume an individual should be allowed to dictate how a community should be run, you understand that's practically a dictatorship, right? (analogically)

I went over the char limit so I'll just keep it short.
"Different interests leads to different enjoyment" doesn't make sense, you're convincing yourself a nonsensical statement makes sense when it doesn't. And this isn't just insult or conjecture, this statement literally tells me nothing. In regards to a community everyone has the same interest, that is the common ground and is irrelevant to their communication. This community isn't just MK, but it's also the internet, as such, you are not justified in gatekeeping it in, since you are not in ownership of either "groups".

Your justification for gatekeeping in its entirety boiled down to the idea that the community's norms and preferences (in your analogy, the game updates) will preference and reflect the majority.

There are many issues with this statement, but they sum up to "...so what?"

You state a fact, yet this helps your case not at all. Instead, here are the presumptions you make:

-You believe you're in the righteous for dictating the norm
-You believe it is best that the majority reflects specifically the norms you cater to
-You believe others are in the wrong for simply being part of a majority

I mean yeah, but everyone else?

I call main characters that have names [stupid adjective] "mc" and no one would mind
I mean if it's just to tick people off I can get it, but based on what I read it really didn't feel that way...

it's not even an argument about the purpose "neo" pronouns hold, but rather TP's own style of commenting should be irrelevant to the argument the comment proposes, no? Kind of like if I got dislike bombed for referring to that green head as psychic loli in a OPM comment section, which sounds a bit abnormal to me.

Maybe I was just overthinking it, rly dont think so but just maybe